Pages

Can the Yogic experience be replicated using psychedelics?

Commentators debate this interesting question. The answer is a 'no' from every commentator, but each offers slightly different reasons. What do you think?November 2013 Spiritual experience due to psychedelics Vijaya comments:"there was a discussion in this forum (why mantra cannot be performed by a machine) regarding the attempt
to replace living pandits with devices like Ipod to chant sanskrit
mantras. Similarly, isn't there a possibility to reduce the spiritual
experience gained through meditation/Yoga to the experience due to
psychedelics and eventually replace meditation/sadhana with
psychedelics?Sam Harris in his Huffpost blog seem to equate the experience due to
the ingestion of psychedelics like LSD and spiritual experience gained
through meditation, although he is cautious about the former.

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/drugs-and-the-meaning-of-_b_891014.html)"...it cannot be denied that psychedelics are a uniquely potent
means of altering consciousness. If a person learns to meditate, pray,
chant, do yoga, etc., there is no guarantee that anything will happen.
Depending on his aptitude, interest, etc., boredom could be the only
reward for his efforts. If, however, a person ingests 100 micrograms of
LSD, what will happen next will depend on a variety of factors, but
there is absolutely no question that something will happen. And boredom
is simply not in the cards. ...It is, however, a difference that
brings with it certain liabilities."This approach presupposes the material nature of our consciousness
as opposed to the dharmic position of many layers of reality. Also, it
separates the metaphysics of objective outer cosmos and the subjective
inner consciousness, which is antithetical to integral unity."

Maria responds:"Very
interesting post, specially your conclusion. Many of these western
scientifics, whose scientific knowledge I don´t doubt, but have a very
limited vision influenced by subtle abrahamic ideas like only one life.
Their potential as researchers is very much limited, provided that they
cannot help but associating mind to the brain, and the end of everything
with the death. If they could go further, see the implications into the
world of samskaras and vasanas brought from life to life, how would
they explain it? There would be a revolution in their own minds. Like
they cannot afford going further, they end up relating every spiritual
experience as provided by the brain. As a material effect of a material
cause, that´s all. Instead of seeing that the brain could be a material
tool in the hands of an spiritual consciousness. I think that is why many
western scientific become atheists..."Prasad responds to the previous two posts:"...
the dharmic position of many layers of reality is nothing more than
another "unfalsifiable presupposition" from a scientific point of view. I
am not aware of any evidence through neuroscience which requires any
neuroscientist to consider a Dharmic view of many layers of reality as a
scientific theory or position. Thus, there is no reason also for
scientists to presuppose anything of the sort of a divide between what
is the cosmos and what is inner consciousness. The duality between mind
and body(brain) is not a chief concern for neuroscience as far as I
know, since there is no scientific evidence as such for any mind
separate from a body.

...Guys
like Sam Harris have spent a llllong time trying to study Dharmic
positions like those in Buddhism and also Advaita Vedanta. It is not
their influence by subtle abrahamic ideas that they stick they to
their claims. Please try to understand the methodology of science
before commenting on scientists and their "biased" worldviews. Science
does not proceed by handwaving or by unfalsifiable theories. It proceeds
by rigorous evidence. So in order for a neuroscientist to seriously
consider the dualistic claim (i.e. there is a body separate from a
mind), an experiment has to be first described which can show whether
the claim is true or not. In other words, see what Harris says -

..

-
So I would opine that the scientific community (which now includes
almost all of humanity) would not be doing science by assuming a duality
between a body and mind and then working from such an assumption to
discover truths about the mind.

Now let me come to how a response can still be made in the lines of Rajivji's ideas of "being different".

First
of all, it is simply a narrow view to treat mind-altering drugs and
meditation (which I will now call dhyAnA, identifying it as a step in
Patanjali's ashtAnga yoga scheme) on the same lines, i.e., as a means to
effect changes in the mental states (I
am purposefully not calling these "states of consciousness" because of
my Advaitic leaning that the mind is different from the Atman, which is
the Original Consciousness). Sam Harris' claim is that both can effect changes in the mental states. According to my understanding, in
Yoga/VedAntA and other indian darshaNAs, the purpose of dhyAnA is not
just about altering your mind-states during the time of meditation.
Instead, the main purpose of dhyAna is to effect the triumph of one's
will over the constantly drifting/changing mind...

In
the same way, a yogi who practises dhyAna according to the Indian
traditional darshana's need not have all the kinds of experiences or
mental states that Harris is talking about. However, over time, he/she will gain the strength of mental will to concentrate on any particular object.
This one-pointedness of mind which one gains is called "chitta-ekAgrata"
in some traditions. The supporting factors to doing proper dhyAna and
achieving its intended results include living a life of ethical and
moral values and having devotional mindset (roughly, yamA and niyamA -
the first two steps of ashtAnga yogA), sitting for dhyAna in correct
physical posture (Asana - 3rd stage), prANAyamA (the 4th stage, learning
to breathe properly prior to dhyAnA), restricting one's diet to saatvic
food and restricting one's mental diet to saatvic imagery/sounds/ etc
(pratyAhArA). Only after all these stages can dhyAnA be done properly
and will bear the appropriate fruit. This is what the Indian Yogic
traditions say, as far as I know. This is why the so-called meditation
does NOT work for everyone and anyone. It is like taking a medicine
without observing the appropriate dietary restrictions for it to work,
and then claiming that the medicine doesn't work!..."

Vijaya responds:

"...My point is that science has a reductive approach to consciousness as BD explains (Page 104),

"...the
Western scientific tradition has been reductionist rather than
integral. Reductionism attempts to explain wholes in terms of their
parts. This works, to a large extent, in ways that are practical, and
hence modern science has made major contribtions to our lives using this
principle.

The unity assumed in most of the dharmic traditions is a unity of
consciousness. Western scientists and philosophers often ask how
consciousness can arise from the chemistry of the brain. In the Indian
tradition, we find the reverse problem. Absolute consciousness is
understood to be the source of everything. The challenge is to
understand the ordinary world of multiplicity."Even your definition of dhyana "to effect the triumph of one's will
over the constantly drifting/changing mind", is also another mental
state with a different/dynamic biochemical composition, according to
neuroscience. So why to do all the tough sadhanas? We can put our
efforts in producing drugs that will give an 'enlightened state' and
distribute them to all?This is not philosophically possible from the viewpoint of
vedanta. The 'turiya' state which is the self and the pure consciousness
is not a state of mind but is the whole essence of other three states,
waking (jågrat), dream (svapna) and deep sleep (susupti). So the self
transcends the other three states. The knowledge of neuroscience(and
even the world) which is in realm of the waking state is limited and it
cant find ways to reach a state that transcends it.

Another important point
neuroscientists like Sam Harris make is that such altered mental states
of mind do not represents reality by any means. This is in line with the
basic axiom of science, the objective existence of the universe. A Sadhaka in dharma religions does not need to start with such an
axiom. That's why realised sages from Ashtavakra to Ramana maharishi
describe enlightenment with analogy of 'waking up from the dream'. So a
sage indeed perceives a different reality. That's why I mentioned
different layers of reality.Finally, there is more to dharma than the reductionist scientific
methods. Dharma traditions take a nuanced approach to one of the pramana
(epistemic tool), Sabda, the verbal testimony. The words
of a realised Yogi which becomes smriti, is accepted and followed if it
agrees with Sruti. This is why we have guru sishya traditions which help
seekers in their spiritual quest. "

This discussion is not over. If you have addition insights on this topic to share, please join the discussion group and contribute.

Disclaimer

Opinions expressed here by bloggers here are personal and do not reflect those of their current or previous associates and employers. Comments are largely un-moderated, and neither reflect the views of, nor are endorsed, by the administrators or bloggers of this website.